John Brisson, Finders Cult or Another Epsteinesque Brownstone Op |443|

#21
Not to be rude but this is an open minded discussion group, all your replies so far are bible related. You have literally shown no independent thought, all theories go back to a revised book we get it. But I'd like to hear your independent thoughts on the subject matter as opposed to parroting Bible verses
Agreed, and looking at this for a moment from Garry's point of view, why did God give us minds that can thing abstractly and philosophically, only to tell us exactly what we should believe!

The idea of a god who makes us - every bit of us - complete with our minds containing with sexual urges and urges to explore and imagine - and then tells us exactly what to do - then waits till we die so he can punish those that disobeyed with eternal torture, is so grotesque when you think about it, can you wonder that I left the Church as a young man along with many others.

David
 
#22
Alex,

I wish we could turn these podcasts about evil into something more constructive.

I mean, couldn't remote viewing give us access to the truth of what is going on?

Given that, what can be done to stop it? One idea might be to persuade some remote healers to try to heal the minds of the people performing these terrible acts. Both the remote viewers and remote healers would need to be warned to take care of themselves mentally. Any success of that sort would cut out all the legal processes stacked against the truth.

If we don't turn the discussion that way, I fear this forum may come to resemble those newspapers and magazines that just trawl through the very worst crimes in a voyeuristic way.

David
 
#23
If we don't turn the discussion that way, I fear this forum may come to resemble those newspapers and magazines that just trawl through the very worst crimes in a voyeuristic way.
I don't think we're anywhere near that.

This is the first of these podcasts that has gotten into any substantial detail about a particular case. How many podcasts did it take on remote viewing or any other psi phenomena to gain a semblance of solid footing? I'd argue Alex is still trying to do that in some areas.

Remote viewing and remote healing seem to work best when there is a particular target - we can't find those targets and hope to be helpful without getting into details and separating out false allegations. Sending "healing vibes" to all future and former child abusers certainly can't hurt, but I think you get my drift. Great notion, though - this is indeed a way we can all help: prayer.
 
#24
BTW I'd love to have Debbie Nathan on for an interview... but I bet you a small fortune she'd never agree to it. if you can help me set it up I'll do it anytime anywhere. the woman looks like a simple-minded useful idiot.

I’d be very happy to look into setting something up with Debbie Nathan. From my perspective, that’s the most productive direction this series could take. I’ll email you about this. I don’t wish to make an impassioned plea for the integrity of her journalism, I do see that Satan’s Silence is written with total acceptance of the witch hunt narrative from the start, however I also find it to be a well researched book, as best I can tell.

I did read the available sections of The Witch Hunt Narrative. It might have some interesting points, and I certainly don’t want to be a cheerleader for Nathan’s journalism, but thus far I have not found it to be a compelling rebuke. I was also aware that evidence based on rectal examinations was central to the trial.

Nathan does write about Mathew’s Johnson’s examination on August 12th, as well as the one in July. She references M. Johnson’s medical records, but does not mention Dr. Richard Segal by name. I don’t think this omission is especially grievous given she was writing a popular book on the topic. She is also clear that Judy Johnson did not raise the issue of sexual assault at the July meeting, which is not the impression Cheit gives. More damning would be Nathan not clearly mentioning the examination by Dr. Scott McGeary where he concluded ‘possible sodomization’ had taken place. That’s the kind of question that would be good to put to her.

The main difference I find between Nathan and Cheit’s narratives is one of emphasis. Cheit always has Mathew Johnson coming to his mentally stable mother volunteering information about thermometers, whereas Nathan has a mentally unstable mother dragging this stuff out of him. I dislike this unobjective tone in both writers.

An example of Cheit being duplicitous would be his comments on page 63, that Nathan cites only a single publication in support of her claim that sodomy can maim or kill a child, and that this publication does not support her claim. This gives the impression that Nathan is fabricating facts, when in fact she additionally cites a phone interview with a Dr. Robert tenBensel as the source of her information. This may be a small point but it’s clearly deceptive, Cheit cannot have failed to notice this during his dissection of the rest of the footnote.

I will look at the Glendale case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to McMartin. I don’t for one moment doubt that child sexual abuse goes on in daycares. I also don’t doubt that some of this is orchestrated and connected to powerful people who can squash investigations of it. I’m also in the camp that strongly suspects what has come into the light, both in Britain and America, is tip of the iceberg stuff.

Given that I can see why someone would look at McMartin and see a pattern. I can’t do that, as I also don’t doubt that the US legal system targets and persecutes completely innocent individuals and convicts them using fake evidence and coerced witness statements. A-priori, it is not obvious to me which camp any individual case belongs in.

It’s also apparent that the latter is used to cover the former, dismissing incidents like Franklin, where Satanic rites were reported, under the umbrella of Satanic Panic. If this is a deliberate strategy then it’s an excellent one - hence why it’s absolutely crucial not to fall into the trap!
 
#25
Alex, I laud your commitment to out evil. But I find your metaphysical assertions in this interview to be incomprehensible. I have an MA in Philosophy--logic and epistemology--and a Ph.D. in a social science. So I use this training along with 40 yrs of continued research and analysis in an effort to understand your views. This is the first interview in which I have heard you elaborate on "as below so above" : namely that we are co-creators of...of what??? It sounds like you are saying we create the demonic. WTF?? Demons exist independently of our thought, as you have seemed to acknowledge many times, e.g. in your shows with Gordon, who conjures so called "safe" demons in his ongoing practice of magic. Radically evil demons exist, as evidenced by impeccably documented cases of possession. And I believe that externally real demons are at play in cases of SRA: humans simply cannot engage in these unimaginable instances of evil without demonic allies/ influence. I must be missing something, as your are so very smart. Can you PLEASE explicate your position of co-creation? Many thanks.
 
#26
But I'd like to hear your independent thoughts on the subject matter as opposed to parroting Bible verses
Bible verses I quoted are in total only a fraction of my reply, Baccarat. I use them to provide a foundation for my replies. My beliefs regarding the evil pervading nearly everything in this world are compliant with the warning nstructions that came from Jesus' mouth that I might instruct others with them. If you prefer to hear from people who enjoy dancing around in the literary sense with the weird strangeness which are the effects of the demonic on humankind simply let me know and I will happily abstain from replying at all. Kind regards, garry
 

Alex

Administrator
#27
I’d be very happy to look into setting something up with Debbie Nathan. From my perspective, that’s the most productive direction this series could take. I’ll email you about this. I don’t wish to make an impassioned plea for the integrity of her journalism, I do see that Satan’s Silence is written with total acceptance of the witch hunt narrative from the start, however I also find it to be a well researched book, as best I can tell.

I did read the available sections of The Witch Hunt Narrative. It might have some interesting points, and I certainly don’t want to be a cheerleader for Nathan’s journalism, but thus far I have not found it to be a compelling rebuke. I was also aware that evidence based on rectal examinations was central to the trial.

Nathan does write about Mathew’s Johnson’s examination on August 12th, as well as the one in July. She references M. Johnson’s medical records, but does not mention Dr. Richard Segal by name. I don’t think this omission is especially grievous given she was writing a popular book on the topic. She is also clear that Judy Johnson did not raise the issue of sexual assault at the July meeting, which is not the impression Cheit gives. More damning would be Nathan not clearly mentioning the examination by Dr. Scott McGeary where he concluded ‘possible sodomization’ had taken place. That’s the kind of question that would be good to put to her.

The main difference I find between Nathan and Cheit’s narratives is one of emphasis. Cheit always has Mathew Johnson coming to his mentally stable mother volunteering information about thermometers, whereas Nathan has a mentally unstable mother dragging this stuff out of him. I dislike this unobjective tone in both writers.

An example of Cheit being duplicitous would be his comments on page 63, that Nathan cites only a single publication in support of her claim that sodomy can maim or kill a child, and that this publication does not support her claim. This gives the impression that Nathan is fabricating facts, when in fact she additionally cites a phone interview with a Dr. Robert tenBensel as the source of her information. This may be a small point but it’s clearly deceptive, Cheit cannot have failed to notice this during his dissection of the rest of the footnote.

I will look at the Glendale case, but I’m not sure it’s relevant to McMartin. I don’t for one moment doubt that child sexual abuse goes on in daycares. I also don’t doubt that some of this is orchestrated and connected to powerful people who can squash investigations of it. I’m also in the camp that strongly suspects what has come into the light, both in Britain and America, is tip of the iceberg stuff.

Given that I can see why someone would look at McMartin and see a pattern. I can’t do that, as I also don’t doubt that the US legal system targets and persecutes completely innocent individuals and convicts them using fake evidence and coerced witness statements. A-priori, it is not obvious to me which camp any individual case belongs in.

It’s also apparent that the latter is used to cover the former, dismissing incidents like Franklin, where Satanic rites were reported, under the umbrella of Satanic Panic. If this is a deliberate strategy then it’s an excellent one - hence why it’s absolutely crucial not to fall into the trap!
thanks Richard... as I explained in the email I'd be happy to have Nathan on skeptiko. my experience suggests that she will decline the offer, but we will see.

By the way, my read of Debbie Nathan is that she's a hardcore materialist / atheist / humanist, but maybe I have that wrong since I haven't dug into her work.

BTW2, do you think Debbie would agree with your position? I think she would totally reject the idea that Satanic ritual abuse happens in the way that it's been reported (and you've stated). I think she would totally reject the idea that it reaches high levels of government and power. and I think she would totally reject the idea that there is an organized effort to suppress and distort this information. If she does hold these positions then I think her credibility has to be called into question.

what's your take on this quote of hers: "no connection has been established between the use of pornography and criminal behavior."

My bias in these matters is strongly on the side of the whistleblowers because as we've seen there is an enormous amount of pressure to suppress and distort this information... remember that the Franklin perpetrators actually won a Criminal prosecution for perjury against one victim. "if they can, they do"
 
Last edited:

Alex

Administrator
#28
This is the first interview in which I have heard you elaborate on "as below so above" : namely that we are co-creators of...of what?
I'm not sure I would those two ideas together without a lot of explanation, but as far as co-creators of reality, I don't think that's a very unique idea. we've talked about it a bunch. lots of spiritual Traditions talk about it... the Buddhist call it till tulpa.
 
#29
can you wonder that I left the Church as a young man along with many others.
David[/QUOTE]
I don't blame you, David. I left the church, if you're talking about the Catholic church myself, and in disgust. But to be a Catholic and to be a true Christian are not the same thing at all. A true Christian is provided with a Guardian Angel. A true Christian will be provided with miracles if and when a miracle is required. A true Christian will no longer be attached to the attractions of this world including money, material things it may buy nor sexual obsession harmful to others. A true Christian is aware of the Divine Spark in all persons and respects all as tiny parts of God. A complete acceptance of the concept leads to a life changing transformation.
I get the sense that many here prefer I relent in my Christ promotional posts here on Skeptiko so I will conclude with this one and offer kind best wishes to all of you. ~garry
 
#30
thanks Richard... as I explained in the email I'd be happy to have Nathan on skeptiko. my experience suggests that she will decline the offer, but we will see.

By the way, my read of Debbie Nathan is that she's a hardcore materialist / atheist / humanist, but maybe I have that wrong since I haven't dug into her work.

BTW2, do you think Debbie would agree with your position? I think she would totally reject the idea that Satanic ritual abuse happens in the way that it's been reported (and you've stated). I think she would totally reject the idea that it reaches high levels of government and power. and I think she would totally reject the idea that there is an organized effort to suppress and distort this information. If she does hold these positions then I think her credibility has to be called into question.

what's your take on this quote of hers: "no connection has been established between the use of pornography and criminal behavior."

My bias in these matters is strongly on the side of the whistleblowers because as we've seen there is an enormous amount of pressure to suppress and distort this information... remember that the Franklin perpetrators actually won a Criminal prosecution for perjury against one victim. "if they can, they do"

Well, I’ve fired off an email to her, so we will see.

What I stated was that some of the Franklin children did report a Satanic element to their abuse, which went unreported in the Yorkshire TV documentary. I simply don’t know how widespread real Satanic ritual is. I would suggest that sexually assaulting children is a Satanic thing to do, irrespective of whether it involves Devil masks or not.

It would be interesting to get Debbie’s take on the Franklin coverup.

I find it very hard to imagine that porn doesn’t contribute to crime. I find it very easy to imagine that statistically demonstrating causation is a very hard thing to do. I have an anti-porn bias to begin with.

I would contend that Debbie is herself a whistleblower. At the time of writing Satan’s Silence there were hundreds of people still incarcerated on life sentences for sex crimes they were later totally exonerated of. Franklin was covered up because it involved sex trafficking for the most powerful people in the country. There’s no comparison between those people and the kind of impoverished Latino babysitters Debbie has worked to get out of jail.

My questions for you Alex (and anyone else of this position) would be: Does the United States have a substantial problem with wrongful convictions? Will law enforcement fabricate testimony and scientific evidence in order to secure convictions? And if the answers are yes, how do we know who the real whistleblowers are here?
 

Alex

Administrator
#31
What I stated was that some of the Franklin children did report a Satanic element to their abuse, which went unreported in the Yorkshire TV documentary. I simply don’t know how widespread real Satanic ritual is.
I don't get this... you're acknowledging there are groups seeking connection with malevolent forces/spirits in the extended consciousness realm, but but you don't know how many people and spirits are involved? I mean, I just don't know how to process that. if there are 750 in the UK and they're working with 250 spirits on the other side what conclusions would you draw from that? what if the #s were 10X... 100X. how many evil spirits fit on the head of a pin?

I would suggest that sexually assaulting children is a Satanic thing to do, irrespective of whether it involves Devil masks or not.
keep in mind that I am not a christian... satan is a metaphor... and I don't understand the mind of god or how the extended consciousness realms operate.

however, I'm frustrated by our inability to process the basic facts of these cases. I suspect, and would suggest that the evidence indicates, there is something real going on when people try to connect with malevolent forces on the other side in order to put perpetrate these horrible crimes. this may be uncontroversial to you and I, but it is completely unacceptable too mainstream academia, mainstream media, love and light new age spiritual folks, and ET space brother fans. on the other hand, there's a wide swath of people in the united states ( and the rest of the world) that have a very narrow but complete understanding of exactly what all this means and they have a special little book with all the answers.


It would be interesting to get Debbie’s take on the Franklin coverup.
sure, but I really, really don't think she's never going to go there Richard. we've all seen this story way too many times.


I find it very hard to imagine that porn doesn’t contribute to crime. I find it very easy to imagine that statistically demonstrating causation is a very hard thing to do. I have an anti-porn bias to begin with.
yeah it sounds like something cooked up out of it wacky postmodern social science department. again, IMO this seriously damages her credibility.


I would contend that Debbie is herself a whistleblower.
sure. I agree. the satanic panic thing really did ensnare a lot of innocent people.


My questions for you Alex (and anyone else of this position) would be: Does the United States have a substantial problem with wrongful convictions?
of course.

how do we know who the real whistleblowers are here?
I think we have to keep doing what you and I are doing.
 
Last edited:
#32
Talk about glued to my seat! The Kevin Annett story, then Anneka Lucas, & now The Finders makes sense of all this barely believable stuff I came across for decades. Brisson brings up his father's conspiracy theory about JFK's murder; I saw a copy of the Zapruder film played at a cowboy bar in San Marcos, TX. that emphatically proved to me that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll in FRONT of JFK's convertible. Then, I came across just plainly lurid descriptions of the things going at Bohemian Grove & other venues. Finally, I watched YouTube presentations that made plain the heroin smuggling carried on by the CIA & others for many years, which in part explained why the USA was having such a hard time getting out of Afghanistan. Why, hell, the money being made smuggling opium out of that country was too good. I'll be honest. I had to have a couple of drinks to get through some of the insights, but I'm glad I did. I am still digesting most of this & probably will be as long as I am around.
 
#33
I'm not sure I would those two ideas together without a lot of explanation, but as far as co-creators of reality, I don't think that's a very unique idea. we've talked about it a bunch. lots of spiritual Traditions talk about it... the Buddhist call it till tulpa.
Now I see the reasons for my not understanding Alex's metaphysics: 1) the term co-creation is used constantly in a New Age and/or Christ consciousness context to refer to our role in directing our evolution toward a positive future--I have never seen it used in the sense of tulpas; and 2) to me the concept of tulpas is impossible to accept regarding the malevolent spirits at work in the extended consciousness realm. Is there no other person here who rejects the concept of demons as tulpas as Alex is apparently endorsing it in the context of SRA???
 
#34
I continue to study the seemingly endless variations of how negative energy asserts itself. Le Hongzhi says that committing acts that eliminate one's storehouse of virtue brings power in the sense of how a black hole draws everything into it, including light, by its sheer density & weight, but this way of gaining power is very limited. Le also relates that benevolent beings monitor the activities of evil entities of all kinds & utterly destroy them at a certain level. There are so many examples of how miracles occurred at crucial times to halt the advance of evil in its tracks that I won't bother w/ that. I certainly do agree w/ Alex that what you focus on gives it power. I had a very strange experience while living at Ananda Cooperative Village in the 1980s. I had told the farming part of the village I would be there to help on an early Saturday morning. When that time came, I had a real struggle to get myself moving & finally began the trek to the fields. As I was just setting out, I experienced an undeniable sense of frustrated anger w/in myself, best described as a shuddering bellow. It made me miss a step & I almost fell, but since it passed quickly, I kept on going. So, was this a demon who was frustrated in its efforts to keep me in bed & break my promise? Was it some part of myself that was just unhappy about working for free?
 
#35
It seems intuitively obvious to me that other beings and civilizations in this universe probably don’t worship Jesus and haven’t Satan listed as their primary blame agent for horrible things like child molestation, if such a thing exists on these other planets. But I’m sure they have their own versions of archetypes like Jesus and Satan, just as different cultures have their versions of the hero’s of good and of the bad here on this very planet. And these beings, if they have NDEs, they see their own versions of these archetypes as well while “dead.” Such is the creative power of consciousness, especially collective consciousness.

Negative consciousness exists, and I think takes the form/mask of whatever archetypes the local society ascribes to them because this is what people choose to see. But I also think that advanced negative consciousness can take these forms simply because they KNOW the psychological terror this can bring about. And this is why all forms of exorcism, smudging, white magic etc seem to largely work. Not because they are logically channeling the right entity or belief purpose, but due to the power of intention.

At any rate, on some remote planet a gazillion light years away, where an intelligent society exists, I really doubt that they are Bible believing Jesus worshippers. This is a local Earth thing. And they likely have their own myths which explain negative consciousness (evil).
 
#36
Okay, I’ve received a reply from Debbie Nathan. She has declined an interview on Skeptiko. I’ll quote her reasons:

‘Thanks for getting in touch. I am not interested in arguing against/engaging with Ross Cheit's work except insofar as I've already done so in the attached. I hope this article is helpful to you.

‘Cheit seems to have an obsessive bias against my work for reasons I don't understand except that clearly he was hurt by sexual abuse that happened to him when he was a child, and somehow this very unfortunate experience may have impaired his critical thinking about the work of people like me. Fortunately I don't have any child abuse victimization or accusation in my background. It's sad that he does -- or that anyone does, for that matter. His work is far out of mainstream thinking about what happened with the SRA cases in the 1980 and 1990s. Absolutely there were some cases in which real abuse (though non RSA) occurred, and the panic was sometimes used by defense lawyers to get people acquitted of things they didn't do, while simultaneously effacing any discussion of what they actually did perpetrate. But Cheit is off the mark about this in every case he discusses in his book. He has said he'll keep going until he reviews every case. Maybe he'll come up with some correct calls.

‘I've been thinking of writing about one, myself, btw.’


The paper she references can be downloaded here.

It goes into some detail regarding Cheit’s handling of the McMartin case. I’ll highlight one example that struck me:

On page 26 of The Witch Hunt Narrative, Cheit claims that prosecutor Glenn Stevens maintained that Judy Johnson did not initially have mental health problems and that the case pushed her over the edge. Cheit claims that screenwriter Abby Mann misrepresented her interviews with Stevens to portray her as always having been mentally ill.

On pages 13 through to 15 of Debbie Nathan’s paper, it is claimed that Cheit is misrepresenting the interviews and that Steven’s did clearly state that Johnson had mental health issues from the outset.

I don’t have access to the transcripts, but Nathan also cites an interview Stevens gave to The New York Times, which I did locate. Here, Stevens is quoted as saying:

‘Judy Johnson was psychotic before she filed the first police report.’

The article was written in 1990. It is impossible for me to believe that Mr. Cheit could have spent years researching his book and not have been aware of this. The man he is citing as a witness for Judy Johnson’s sanity is flatly contradicting that position in a major publication.

I'll say again, I'm very open to the possibility of there existing anything up to and including a full blown pedo-oligarchy and I'm sure John Brisson is doing valuable work in bringing many things to light. My concern is that ends up getting derailed by things like this.
 
#37
Interesting interview and discussion. I argue against a lot of what Richard Cox is into, but I still like him and have some respect for his work. In some cases I even think he's basically correct.

I argue more about what Alex is into in this vein of thought b/c it seems too based on hearsay, fantasies and biases - and of course, conspiracies. Why is the focus always on "elites" committing bad behaviors no matter how strained the ties from the alleged act to the elite individuals and organizations? What difference does socio-economic-political status have to do with committing evil, aligning to evil forces, etc.? How is a child molested by broke-dick hillbillies less damaged than a child molested by "elites"? Other than representing fodder for creators and abettors of world domination conspiracy theories, I don't understand the focus if understanding evil in the extended consciousness realm is the purpose of the discussion.

I do agree with Alex's "co-creator"/Tulpa concept. I think that's about right, but it does, to my mind, imply that there is some basic energetic field that is evil and that is the raw material from which humans then create specific manifested evil. Fine with that because I think it's how it actually works. I also am pretty damn sure there are low level souls and entities that are evil and that influence humans that are susceptible.

But here's a serious question - why wouldn't all that evil that's out there falsely accuse the innocent of evil so as to destroy them and to sow fear and discord? Why isn't it equally likely that the mother accusing a day care center of evil acts actually be the evil one herself; perhaps even molesting and threatening her own child? Why wouldn't the person accusing "elites" of heinous acts be just as likely to be a liar and a false accuser as the ones she points a finger at? Again, I see a lot of unexamined biases in these discussions and they tend to lean in the direction of conspiracies of elites.
 
#38
I get the sense that many here prefer I relent in my Christ promotional posts here on Skeptiko so I will conclude with this one and offer kind best wishes to all of you. ~garry
Garry, that is not the case for me. I do appreciate all posts of differing viewpoints, and if any of my comments have engendered your position that your Christ promotional posts are not welcome, please know that was not my intention. Sometimes all we know how to do is pushback, so we do so with those who seem to have great conviction, the gift is always married to the curse. :)
 
#39
Addendum - there are lots of imbalanced and downright crazy people out there who will say all sorts of things for reasons that make no sense to anyone else. Then there are all sorts of people ready to run with what the imbalanced/crazy person says for reasons of their own that are hard to understand.

Eye witness testimony is often very faulty (we all know that). hearsay is hearsay. people distort or concoct "facts" and omit those that don't support their story.
 
#40
I don't blame you, David. I left the church, if you're talking about the Catholic church myself, and in disgust. But to be a Catholic and to be a true Christian are not the same thing at all. A true Christian is provided with a Guardian Angel. A true Christian will be provided with miracles if and when a miracle is required. A true Christian will no longer be attached to the attractions of this world including money, material things it may buy nor sexual obsession harmful to others. A true Christian is aware of the Divine Spark in all persons and respects all as tiny parts of God. A complete acceptance of the concept leads to a life changing transformation.
I get the sense that many here prefer I relent in my Christ promotional posts here on Skeptiko so I will conclude with this one and offer kind best wishes to all of you. ~garry
Garry, there is a difference between wishing to stop you speaking, and wishing to disagree with you!

The Church I left was the Church of England, which is a fairly mild type of Christianity. However, like all brands of Christianity, it revered the Bible, so it can never really think for itself. The doctrine that finally made me leave was the idea that God couldn't simply forgive people for sins, he could merely transfer those sins to Jesus, and punish him instead! There were a group of intense Christians who seemed to believe this idea with a passion - I am sure they could quote verses from the Bible to justify this, but it was nonsense.

David
 
Top